50mm f1.5 Summarit or 50mm Summicron(V1, rigid)

[Herman Zhang]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I am planning on getting a 50mm to replace my current Jupiter-8(soviet copy of a zeiss sonnar 50/2), and I am trying to decide between the Summarit 50 f1.5 and the 50 f2 summicron rigid. Can anyone tell me about some characteristics of the two lenses, which one has better contrast and sharpness, ergonomics and the availability. Or should I get a Zeiss zm 50mm f1.5 when comparing with the Leica lenses, which will probably have a better image quality and flare resistance?

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Al Brown]

ZM 50 wins this competition.
https://phillipreeve.net/blog/carl-zeiss-c-sonnar-t-50mm-f1-5-zm-a-detailed-review/

Edited February 19, 2024 by Al Brown

[Herman Zhang]

27 minutes ago, Al Brown said:

ZM 50 wins this competition.
https://phillipreeve.net/blog/carl-zeiss-c-sonnar-t-50mm-f1-5-zm-a-detailed-review/

In every aspect? even price? Some summarits can be very cheap tho

[Herman Zhang]

Also, is the summarit a Schneider design? would there be much difference between the leitz Xenon?

[Herman Zhang]

Or I might consider the Apo-Lanthar from Voigtlander. That's also around a similar price second hand. Is that lens any good?

[Alberti]

An issue with the older lenses is the haze the will have in some degree or surely will get. And with that, sensitivity to moist conditions.

The metal on the lens house (alu..) might oxidize, and then this will influence the lens surface.

[Aryel]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

You have so many options... What I'd suggest is to decide first whether you want classic or modern rendering, this will help you narrow down the choice. I have both the v1 and the rigid. No experience with the Zeiss. They are both low contrast. The rigid is sharper than the v1. The v1 has more character... In terms of handling, I prefer the rigid with its nice focusing ring. I use both a lot.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

m3, summicron 50 rigid, hp5(@800 in dd-x)

Edited February 19, 2024 by Aryel

[Al Brown]

2 hours ago, Herman Zhang said:

In every aspect? even price? Some summarits can be very cheap tho

In your OP you list "better image quality and flare resistance", my answer is that in those aspects the ZM is a winner.

[dpitt]

Comparing a modern Zeiss with a 60 year old Leica is a bit strange. Not even the price range matches. The Summarit wins the price race. The Rigid wins the rendering race IMO, althoug I do not have experience with Zeiss in general, I generally prefer the Summicrons 'look' of both v1 an v2 over the cooler Zeiss. YMMV

The Summicron v1 wins as the best compromise IQ/price and value for money IMO. And on top of that it is collapsible and very compact and light.
Take your time to find one. Samples with a nice front element are hard too find, but worth the trouble.

[BernardC]

On 2/19/2024 at 9:34 AM, Al Brown said:

In your OP you list "better image quality and flare resistance", my answer is that in those aspects the ZM is a winner.

You should also consider the ZM Planar 50/2.0. It has a more conventional image quality compared to the Sonnar 1.5, and it's much sharper at close distance. That is probably why the ZM Planar focuses to 70cm instead of 1m for the Sonnar.

[pgk]

Simplistically the earlier lenses will be of lower contrast. If uncoated then they will be very low. If coated then the contrast will be higher depending on the coating (single, multi) and condition of coating. Any modern multicoated lens will have better contrast though unless there is something very wrong with it.

[Herman Zhang]

9 hours ago, BernardC said:

You should also consider the ZM Planar 50/2.0. It has a more conventional image quality compared to the Sonnar 1.5, and it's much sharper at close distance. That is probably why the ZM Planar focuses to 70cm instead of 1m for the Sonnar.

But would the sharpness be good enought for the zm 50 f1.5 when I close it down to f2?

[ocean2059]

On 2/19/2024 at 6:44 AM, Herman Zhang said:

I am planning on getting a 50mm to replace my current Jupiter-8(soviet copy of a zeiss sonnar 50/2), and I am trying to decide between the Summarit 50 f1.5 and the 50 f2 summicron rigid. Can anyone tell me about some characteristics of the two lenses, which one has better contrast and sharpness, ergonomics and the availability. Or should I get a Zeiss zm 50mm f1.5 when comparing with the Leica lenses, which will probably have a better image quality and flare resistance?

It might be helpful to know what M bodies that you're currently using. Digital or film? For digital, color or monochrom bodies? The four lenses that mentioned here are quite different in terms of their respective optical performances. For color and especially digital, both Zeiss ZMs have modern color rendering with saturated color and excellent micro contrast. The ZM Planar 50/2 is a better corrected lens, but some may find to be a bit boring, while the ZM Sonnar 50/1.5 offers a more lively optical characters wide open. The MFD for Sonnar 50/1.5 is 0.9 m and it has some focus shift between f/1.5 and f/2.8 at distance of around 1.5 - 2.0 m.

If you are exclusively shooting B&W/monochrome , I would recommend to consider the two Leicas that you mentioned. To me, the Summicrion 50/2 Rigid is a wonderful general do-it-all lens. It has it's unique rendering qualities that you don't see in modern lenses anymore, good resolution with lower contrast wide open, great for high MP digital monochrome censors (M10M/M11M). The Summarit 50/1.5 has less center resolution at f/1.5 but it's rendering quality also quite special. But these are 60+ years old lenses so make sure to have them CLAed. They are also pretty prone to flare so try use lens hood whenever you can. Their color renderings are a bit muted with less saturation and slight warm tint compared with the Zeiss ZMs. I should also mention that the MFD for both of the Leica lenses is 1 m

I use both ZMs for color, Planar 50/2 for film and Sonnar 50/1.5 on digital (and alway wide open whenever possible). I use both Summicrion 50/2 Rigial and Summarit 50/1.5 (my copy is an LTM version) almost exclusively on digital monochrom bodies (M9M/M10M). I like both lenses equally but I use the Summarit 50/1.5 more often. Off topic, a more modern version of the these two old classic Leica lenses is the new Voigtlander 50mm f/1.5 Heliar Classic VM with MFD of 0.5 m. 

[Herman Zhang]

2 hours ago, ocean2059 said:

It might be helpful to know what M bodies that you're currently using. Digital or film? For digital, color or monochrom bodies? The four lenses that mentioned here are quite different in terms of their respective optical performances. For color and especially digital, both Zeiss ZMs have modern color rendering with saturated color and excellent micro contrast. The ZM Planar 50/2 is a better corrected lens, but some may find to be a bit boring, while the ZM Sonnar 50/1.5 offers a more lively optical characters wide open. The MFD for Sonnar 50/1.5 is 0.9 m and it has some focus shift between f/1.5 and f/2.8 at distance of around 1.5 - 2.0 m.

If you are exclusively shooting B&W/monochrome , I would recommend to consider the two Leicas that you mentioned. To me, the Summicrion 50/2 Rigid is a wonderful general do-it-all lens. It has it's unique rendering qualities that you don't see in modern lenses anymore, good resolution with lower contrast wide open, great for high MP digital monochrome censors (M10M/M11M). The Summarit 50/1.5 has less center resolution at f/1.5 but it's rendering quality also quite special. But these are 60+ years old lenses so make sure to have them CLAed. They are also pretty prone to flare so try use lens hood whenever you can. Their color renderings are a bit muted with less saturation and slight warm tint compared with the Zeiss ZMs. I should also mention that the MFD for both of the Leica lenses is 1 m

I use both ZMs for color, Planar 50/2 for film and Sonnar 50/1.5 on digital (and alway wide open whenever possible). I use both Summicrion 50/2 Rigial and Summarit 50/1.5 (my copy is an LTM version) almost exclusively on digital monochrom bodies (M9M/M10M). I like both lenses equally but I use the Summarit 50/1.5 more often. Off topic, a more modern version of the these two old classic Leica lenses is the new Voigtlander 50mm f/1.5 Heliar Classic VM with MFD of 0.5 m. 

Leica M240, digital, colour

[Herman Zhang]

2 hours ago, ocean2059 said:

It might be helpful to know what M bodies that you're currently using. Digital or film? For digital, color or monochrom bodies? The four lenses that mentioned here are quite different in terms of their respective optical performances. For color and especially digital, both Zeiss ZMs have modern color rendering with saturated color and excellent micro contrast. The ZM Planar 50/2 is a better corrected lens, but some may find to be a bit boring, while the ZM Sonnar 50/1.5 offers a more lively optical characters wide open. The MFD for Sonnar 50/1.5 is 0.9 m and it has some focus shift between f/1.5 and f/2.8 at distance of around 1.5 - 2.0 m.

If you are exclusively shooting B&W/monochrome , I would recommend to consider the two Leicas that you mentioned. To me, the Summicrion 50/2 Rigid is a wonderful general do-it-all lens. It has it's unique rendering qualities that you don't see in modern lenses anymore, good resolution with lower contrast wide open, great for high MP digital monochrome censors (M10M/M11M). The Summarit 50/1.5 has less center resolution at f/1.5 but it's rendering quality also quite special. But these are 60+ years old lenses so make sure to have them CLAed. They are also pretty prone to flare so try use lens hood whenever you can. Their color renderings are a bit muted with less saturation and slight warm tint compared with the Zeiss ZMs. I should also mention that the MFD for both of the Leica lenses is 1 m

I use both ZMs for color, Planar 50/2 for film and Sonnar 50/1.5 on digital (and alway wide open whenever possible). I use both Summicrion 50/2 Rigial and Summarit 50/1.5 (my copy is an LTM version) almost exclusively on digital monochrom bodies (M9M/M10M). I like both lenses equally but I use the Summarit 50/1.5 more often. Off topic, a more modern version of the these two old classic Leica lenses is the new Voigtlander 50mm f/1.5 Heliar Classic VM with MFD of 0.5 m. 

The Zeiss 50mm f1.5 has a similar price with the voigtlander 50 f1.5 heliar classic, so which one you say is better?

[pgk]

1 hour ago, Herman Zhang said:

..... which one you say is better?

'Better' is difficult to quantify.

In essence older lenses have more optical 'faults' because they are not so well corrected. This shows up as 'poor' (some might say characterful) performance wide-open, improving performance stopped down, optimising at smaller apertures than modern lenses. Often they also suffer from performance variation across the frame with corners being worst. And low contrast due to no or less effective coatings.

Modern lenses are better designed to minimise optical flaws and perform better wide open (better corrected to less characterful), may optimise at mid-apertures rather than when well stopped down, have more even performance across the frame and most have higher contrast, especially if well multicoated.

If modern performance matters then buy a modern lens. Older lenses can work well but only if you like the character produced by their limited performance. The Summarit for example is a fast lens with very imperfect wide-open performance which some like (I have one but find it is useful sometimes but not all the time). Its a fast lens and prone to front element surface damage which exacerbates existant flare which is significant, especially with uncoated copies, due to the multiple large elements with many air/glass interfaces. It has its place but I don't think that I would find it useful as an all round 50mm lens. The original hood for the Summarit is expensive as are filters too.

[BernardC]

11 hours ago, Herman Zhang said:

But would the sharpness be good enought for the zm 50 f1.5 when I close it down to f2?

You'll need to search for examples online to decide. It's a very asymmetrical lens design, which gets worse as you focus closer (unlike a "Planar" which is somewhat symmetrical). I find that it's just to soft and full of weird aberrations up close, for my own use. You might like that rendering, or you might just use a different lens for close-ups.

[ocean2059]

8 hours ago, Herman Zhang said:

The Zeiss 50mm f1.5 has a similar price with the voigtlander 50 f1.5 heliar classic, so which one you say is better?

Which one is better is very subjective. What I like may not suit your taste as I don't know what your will be shooting with the lens. I prefer the ZM Sonnar 50/1.5 for color with good lighting conditions. I prefer the color rendering from the Sonnar, a bit more vibrant and contrasty. Personally, I also like the rendering of classic Sonnar design very much. For B&W and evening outings with low light conditions, I will definitely prefer to use the Helier Classic 50/1.5, more subtle and gentle rendering but still have good center resolution. I view them as very different lenses, not one is better than the other. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Decimusmaximus7]

I only shoot vintage lenses on my M240, but I sold my Summarit after I picked up a v1 Summilux. 

Edited February 25, 2024 by Decimusmaximus7